W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2003

Re: URGENT: Request to advance to PR ready, Request process check, Ed's doc check

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:16:11 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1068848170.20776.15.camel@jammer.dm93.org>

On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 14:03, Brian McBride wrote:
> DanC:  I've completed the changes you requested to
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance.html
> 
> and removed draft status and final @@'s

I took a quick look at v 1.36; looks good.

> The next step is to send to the director, copying chairs - right?

yes. Copy w3c-semweb-cg if you like.

>  Do I 
> send the doc, or a link?

I'd send a text version of the document
http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/html2txt?url=http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance
plus a link.

>   The request looks different to others I see in 
> the archive, so I'm checking.  It makes no mention of satisfying 
> dependencies as required by process doc [1] - thats ok - right.

That's less than ideal. Ideally, we'd enumerate dependencies
under "summary of review", but I'm reasonably confident
we did in fact resolve our dependencies (esp. I18N, WebOnt,
XML Schema) and we can supply details on request.

>   It 
> doesn't suggest a timescale for review as the recent XML Core request does.

Was the XML Core request a CR request? The time for a PR review
is set in the process document: 4 weeks.

> EDs:  The request to advance contains status info about edits still in 
> progress.  Please verify these are correct.  I think they are and will 
> go ahead as soon I've verified the process, if I don't hear form you.
> 
> Brian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/process.html#transition-reqs
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 17:16:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 14 November 2003 17:16:19 EST